Re:

Victor
If we are going to review the P&P since some DASC responsibilities
are currently delegated to DASC-SC, we need to also review DASC-SC
P&P.  Perhaps we should merge the two since the objective of P&Ps
is to define the governance of DASC by DASC and DASC-SC.


Comments on "DASC P&P (with comments by GSR)".

Comment 1:
Introduction
 From GSR:  "These procedures can be updated no more than once per year."

Unless this is an IEEE SA or CS requirement, why place
this restriction on the document?


Comment 2:
3.3 Removal of Officers
"An officer may be removed by approval of two-thirds of the
voting members of the Sponsor. Grounds for removal shall be
included in any motion to remove an officer of the Sponsor."


This entire section could be one of the numbered items section
7.5 "Actions Requiring Approval by Two-Thirds of Those Voting of
the DASC Membership"
4. Removal of an officer of DASC

If this section is retained as 3.3, it needs some rewording:
"A DASC officer may be removed by approval of two-thirds of the
voting members of DASC. Grounds for removal shall be
included in any motion to remove such officer."


Comment 3:
Formation of study groups seems to be covered by 3 rules:
DASC P&P addition by GSR:
3.4.1 Chair
   . . .
   2)  Form Study Groups, as necessary

DASC P&P in approved version and the addition by GSR:
"5 Subgroups Created by the DASC
5.1 Subgroups of the DASC
When one or more subgroups (subcommittees, working groups,
technical subcommittees, writing groups, etc.) are formed
specifically to expedite the standards development work of
the DASC, their formation (and later disbandment) shall be
in accordance with the procedures of the IEEE-CS SAB. "

DASC-SC P&P:
"5.4 Actions Requiring Approval by a Majority of the
DASC-SC Membership"
item 1:  "Formation of a subgroup of the DASC, including
           its procedures, scope, and duties"


It would be alot easier to spot things like this if the
DASC and DASC-SC P&Ps were merged.


Comment 4:
3.4.1 Chair
. . .
h)
   Seek consensus of the Sponsor as a means of resolving all issues

Is the Sponsor DASC or DASC-SC?

Does this mean the chair does not make independent
ruling on items up for discussion?   I don't see anything
in the P&Ps new or old that give the chair the right to
independently decide anything.

Again, this would suggest merging DASC and DASC-SC P&Ps.


Comment 5:
7.3 Voting By Ballot
With the prevalence of email balloting, I think we
should drop letter ballot from this document.

Comment 6:
8. Balloting group for a standard
This would seem to be redundant with higher level documents.
I would not repeat this type of information here.
The only path to IEEE standardization is by following
the IEEE standards processes.


Comment 7:
Further definition of what a study group is vs. what a
working group is is necessary.  Who develops a PAR?
Is it a study group or is it a working group?

Comment 8:
Roberts rules of order is quite a lengthy document.
Since most IEEE standards groups seem to reference
this, it would be helpful if IEEE SA created a
1-2 page guide as a condensed version.

Comment 9:
To bring us into the 21st century, we really need
a parliamentary guide for running groups via email.

Who can initiate a discussion on a point of action via email?
When is it appropriate to intitiate an email call
for vote of DASC-SC?
Who can initiate a call for email vote of DASC-SC?
Can only the chair initiate an email call for vote?
Are there conditions where members of DASC-SC or
DASC can through agreement of X number of members
can initiate a call for email vote?


Cheers,
Jim
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Lewis
Director of Training             mailto:Jim@SynthWorks.com
SynthWorks Design Inc.           http://www.SynthWorks.com
1-503-590-4787

Expert VHDL Training for Hardware Design and Verification
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~